> it appears that there are mistakes in ntohl and ntohs. > for obvious reasons int is valid for both "unsigned long" and > "unsigned short" due to the usual conversions (and the local, > temporary conventions on amd64), but remember, type > signatures are based on C types, and may differ from the > implementation.
I presumed I missed the obvious errors because I didn't know what to look for. I'll see if I can internalise this for future use. With the CVS sources, turning on "T" creates an avalanche of errors. I suspect the same goes for OpenLDAP. ++L
